Why do people hate temple of doom so much?

Willie's screaming ruined that movie.

>bring back Marion
Karen Allen was impossibly cute in Raiders, but recurring love interest would have made the sequel films worse, not better.

Also, she spent a few years completely fucking insane and probably couldn't have come back anyway.

Attached: Marion_with_knife.jpg (1136x816, 129.48K)

I've said this a million times and I'll say it a million more:

If you do not enjoy Temple of Doom, then you are not a fan of Indiana Jones.

Which is fine, just fuck off and enjoy other things. It's ok, you don't have to enjoy Indiana Jones. I don't care, just go complain about Star Wars or some shit and literally fuck off.

Again, if you find yourselves talking shit about Temple of Doom then you are simply not a fan of the Indiana Jones franchise.

It's cool. We don't need you. Never did.

Indiana Jones fans enjoy the fuck out of every Indy movie, Crystal Skull included.

Attached: Screenshot 2022-03-12 at 11.33.42.png (1294x1284, 1.93M)

>she spent a few years completely fucking insane
QRD?

The fact they didn't bring same characters makes Indy trilogy one of the best. You can watch them in any order and understand everything. There's no need to know how Indy got to know character in previous film and you don't even need to know previous event. This makes Indiana Jones trilogy the most watchable one ever. All rest like Mad Max, BTTF, Pirates, Star Wars and LoTR etc require you to watch all in order.

>be a prequel for no reason
There's nothing wrong with it being a prequel though. Pulp adventure comics could take place anywhere at any time, that was the idea Spielberg was trying to emulate. Kids had clue where the story would go next and writers could just make shit up on the fly with total freedom

Attached: doc-savage-the-man-of-bronze-conde-nast.jpg (275x400, 30.56K)

I've always liked it. I never really rank the indie movies but it's not my favorite, but it's not bad, either. Fun watch.

>The fact they didn't bring same characters makes Indy trilogy one of the best
yeah that's why they brought all the minor characters back for The Last Crusade...

I don't hate it at all, but it is the shittiest one in the trilogy.

Actually, I think Karen Allen just stayed in her house for a year after Raiders. I may have conflated her with Margot Kidder (Lois Lane), who had pretty bad bipolar disorder.

okay but these aren't shitty comics sold for a nickel, these are movies

The real reason is people feeling the need to overreact because it gets hyped as much as Empire Strikes Back for being the “dark, edgy one” and also because it’s the easiest to watch as a stand alone movie.

Which ones? Indys pals from Uni that were not even properly introduced in previous films and just jumped in? The rest is all new. Each character got own introduction. The only nod to previous films is small painting of the Ark during Venice catacombs scene.

it's serialkino

Is a prequel because he couldn’t think of a sequel, but everyone wanted another one so he decided he could show you some stuff that happened before the last one

>it’s the easiest to watch as a stand alone movie.
that would be raiders.

>it gets hyped as much as Empire Strikes Back for being the “dark, edgy one” and also because it’s the easiest to watch as a stand alone movie
completely making things up now
who the fuck compares this to Empire? and how is this the easiest to watch as a stand alone movie? they're all watchable as stand alone movies

>okay but these aren't shitty comics sold for a nickel, these are movies
These are movies based off pulp comic adventures....the kind Spielberg and Lucas read as kids, you fucking imbecile

Ah, yeah, I think so. I want even alive then but I remember adults gossiping about that when I was like super young

Crystal skull wasn't as good, but the opening scene is top kino.
From some dialogue, and the way they treat Indy, you really get the sense that he's a real dangerous son-of-a-bitch, even into his old age.

There's some fun throwbacks to the old films, although John Hurt only having 4 repeated lines of dialogue wastes him, and choosing Shia lebuff to "carry the torch" was a bad idea, considering how retarded he is now. He's good in the film, but they should've chose someone they could've carried on the series with, or changed the end scene altogether.

Chilled monkey brains are disgusting and if you don't agree so are you.

There, I said it and I'm not sorry.

>Crystal Skull included
Based. I hated when it came out and my friends said aliens were too unrealistic. Probably the dumbest criticism I've ever heard.

Pulp refers to novels, not comics. And movies that use their feel as a premise tend to be great fun.

Attached: The Mummy.jpg (1000x1500, 230.1K)

Brody and Sallah were the most notable minor characters from Raiders and then they show up in Last Crusade. Everybody knows it was a mistake to get rid of everybody but Indy for the next movie.

Crystal Skull is better than Temple of Doom by far.

>people defend Crystal Skull now
let me guess, when the shitty fifth movie comes out you'll be defending that one too

crystal skull had a few good scenes in the beginning but the plot was a nonsensical mess. temple of doom was a little meandering but they had a goal and a clear villain, stronger plot overall

Yes but they were never really introduced in these movies. In Raiders they just jump in as people Indy knew and they do the same in Crusade. It's not like missing one movie will impact your experience on another. Meanwhile when you watch any BTTF or Star Wars sequels you are lost and confused. That's why I think Indiana Jones trilogy avoiding to re-use other characters and introducing each own in each movie was the best idea. Honestly if Marcus was replaced by any other unknown character it would be even better. They obviously brought them back for audience to cheer when they see them again. Bad move from storyline point but not affecting the movie much. Ive seen Crusade as 1st and I understood everything without watching the rest. Then watched Raiders and Temple. Meanwhile watching LoTR from 3rd movie and going back to 1st makes no sense. This is what marks good trilogy and bad trilogy. Good trilogy means 3 different stories but following same characters. Trilogy which uses same story split in 3 isn't even a proper trilogy, it's three-parter instead.

I don't think so. Crystal skull has a sort of Meta-postmodern element to it.
It's no longer trying to borrow from or emulate old pulp fiction books, instead, it's trying to emulate the old Indy movies. It's an emulation of an emulation, which definelty harms the story and certainly harms aspects of the visuals, with the film having few iconic shots, unlike the first 3 (silhouette digging shot in raiders, wide angle of the bridge in temple, pan shot of the invisible bridge in crusade)

>Inb4 pretentious retard

People will always say aliens are unrealistic, but the the literal ark of the covenant, a knight that lives for 1000s of years because he drinks from the holy grail, and Hindu preists using magic to tear your heart from your chest, send you to hell through a portal, and use voodoo is all fine and realistic

>replace Willie with Marion
>no Short Round, you're a faggot if you think that barely coherent child was a good character
>have Indy and Marion in India looking for something from the start, they come across the cultists at the same place they're looking for the artifact and barely escape with their lives
>they encounter the village, find out more about what's going on with the cult and decide to help them since it accomplishes their parallel goal of getting the artifact anyway
>everything else can play out similarly except there's no Willie acting like a fucking retard the whole time

If they make a 5th one, it needs to be a period piece in the same vein as the old Indiana Jones films. Nobody wants to see old Harrison ford moping about just to get paid. Not necessarily a reboot, but a film that's just similar in style, themes, and concept

Aliens is retarded crap, it's not based on historical or cultural relevance. People know what the Ark of the Covenant is, people know what the crusades are, people know what voodoo is. Nobody knows about crystal skull aliens. The fourth Indy movie should have been The Fate of Atlantis, i.e. something that people are familiar with.

nigger they're making a fifth movie right now and it involves time travel

Last crusade is the worst in the original series, never understood the hype for it
Raiders>Temple>Crusade>>>>nukefridge

>Last crusade is the worst in the original series

Attached: images (8).jpg (554x554, 24.81K)

Yeah i never understood this
Aliens make as much sense as any of the other supernatural nonsense

Im right though. Temple is darker and uglier, lacks any of the corny PG rated 'i love my dad' bullshit

>Raiders = Temple = Crusade
I like them all and watch them quite often.

>corny PG rated 'i love my dad' bullshit
wanna know how I can tell you were raised by a single mother?

This

The india setting is just not appealing to people.
Nor are the primitive no lines villains.
The movie at the core is not bad and has very entertaining parts.
But if it would take place in somewhere less shitty it might have more following.

Now compare the shitty india to various interesting countries and eloquent nazies and their collaborators as the enemy... suddenly so much more engaging.

Attached: aEBW1Ox_460s.jpg (460x480, 43.89K)

It's because those other things are grounded enough by some kind of actual history that they make sense in a movie about an adventurous archeologist.

nobody hates it, stop pretending to be persecuted

for me it's because it has too much action with too little excitement ironically, it just drags on

it's the weakest of the TRILOGY, but only by a slim margin. so, still a fantastic movie

it's also hilarious, especially as indy and shortround completely ignore it

The chick and the kid are annoying as fuck.

based take, the entire trilogy is great

Attached: 5jxoi1K.gif (500x212, 706.29K)

Really?

>Crystal Skull included.
I'm afraid this bait was too subtle for the crowd here

Being a fan of anything is super gay. Fanatics will precisely accept anything as long as it has the brand name on it.

Like I mentioned, pajeets hate it.

I was in a discussion board talking about The Phantom with a bunch of fans and a few people involved in various publishers of the comics around the world, around the time the Billy Zane movie came out. We were talking about the time that a movie shoudl be set. I said I thought the 1930s was perfect, because the world was still an adventure. Getting places by boat or plane took a long time, there was radio but most places didn't have phones etc etc. Then I made the mistake of saying "Like Indiana Jones". An Indian doctor in the discussion went absolutely apeshit. Incoherent with BLOODY FUCK YOU BLOODY BASTARD BLOODY rage. It was amazing. In front of the big-wigs and all.

yep, I'm old

yeah, Indy's sidekicks this time around are an ugly woman and some mutt teenager

I blame Spielberg for that though. Lucas at least tried making something new with the script by borrowing from '50s scifi movies while Spielberg just wanted to make an "Indy" movie.

It's kind of amazing that people don't seem to realize this shit is when Hollywood started doing nothing but nostalgia, from the directors down. Spielberg, Lucas, Scorsese all got their big breaks trying to recapture their childhood while following the structures of pre-existing media.

The difference between those guys and now is that people now use the nostalgia that the audience has, not their own. They have no love for what they borrow and they fucking destroy everything.